Microsoft's response to Apple's win is probably the most cringeworthy of all. Blatantly admitting Windows Phone can't make a dent in the market on merit, but instead requires the court room to do so, Bill Cox, senior director of Windows Phone marketing communications, said: "Windows Phone is looking gooooood right now." Nauseating.

With that being said, Microsoft is coming off looking like an angel when compared to Apple at this moment. One thing I will concede is someone noting that Apple when given the sort of power Microsoft has will be far worse - as seen so far things are moving in that direction. Where as Microsoft is happy to ask for $3 per unit we have Apple who effectively wants the vendor to shut down - $45-$50 is not realistic and pretty much demands that the business closes their doors.

MS just comes off as rather slimy. Unlike apple, they sidle up to vendors and extort money out of them. MS doesn't have mobile success so they choose to get some money out of competitors as opposed to blocking them outright.

MS just comes off as rather slimy. Unlike apple, they sidle up to vendors and extort money out of them. MS doesn't have mobile success so they choose to get some money out of competitors as opposed to blocking them outright.

I don't think either is correct.

If these said companies knew that Microsoft had no leg to stand on do you really think they would licence it in the first place? the question isn't the outcome based on what we to occur but how it will turn out based on how the law is written today - in a perfect world the evidence for anything to be patented would be high, the patent office itself would be well funded and most important the 'common good' would trump business greed in cases of issues such as medication for treatable diseases but said treatment is too high due to price gouging. If Samsung and HTC had a leg to stand on they would never had agreed to the licence hence there must have been some validity in it hence on one hand we have Microsoft realise that making a few bucks by asking a reasonable amount is more productive than throwing an Apple of demanding sums that are so incredibly out of this world that it would be derelict of being a manager to simply roll over and accept it - maybe Samsung was hoping that maybe if they could punch some holes in the case that Apple would licence the technology at a more reasonable price. IMHO I would have preferred to see the judge tell Samsung and Apple that $5 per unit for an across the board licensing and leave it at that. Apple would get fair compensation and Samsung would make a reasonable return on their product sales.